Because I can not modify my homework page, I'm adding some more thing here.
What I did is
I integrated B for the positive area to get CAPE value.
%%-----------------------------------
% #11
%------------------------------------
%% Buoyancy and CAPE like energy
%-------------------------------------
h=figure(10)
subplot(1,2,1)
plot(B,z/1000, '-k'); title('Buoyancy');
ylabel('height (km)');
line([0 0],[0 18], 'linestyle', '--');
xx=find(B > 0);
nx=length(xx); % 133
for k=2:nx % I want to integrate from the 2nd point
nB(k-1)=B(xx(k));
nz(k-1)=z(xx(k));
end
CAPElike2=trapz(nz,nB); % I gave me one value
hold on
plot(B(xx),z(xx)/1000, 'or', 'markersize', 2.0);
subplot(1,2,2)
plot(CAPElike,z/1000, '-k'); title('CAPE like energy');
ylabel('height (km)');
line([0 0],[0 18], 'linestyle', '--');
text(-0.2, 10, ['CAPE =' num2str(fix(CAPElike2)),' J/kg'],'FontSize',18)
purpose : I'm curious about the relationship between (1) surface temperature and cloud thickness and (2) surface temperature and LCL level, whether (1) thicker clouds and (2) low clouds (=low LCL) will increase surface temperature.
Final two figures
Figure 1: surface temperature v.s. cloud thickness (The reason that I can use RH instead of LCL, see Fig4)
The dotted lines are mean RH and temp Ts. ??? It's not a exact linear. what happened surface temperature higher than ~28?
Figure 2: surface temperature v.s. LCL level ??? no dependence....at least IR temp > -40c (or can we say linear relation between them?) ??? Lower then -40: ice?? envil??
For all figures below here: processes to reach the above two figures.
Figure 3
We can see from the above figures : we can use RH instead of a real LCL height. We'll see the figure (below) looks same as the 1st figure.
Figure 4 (below):
Figure 5 (below)
we can see from the above figure: the level of IR temperature (cloud top) changes significantly, while LCL height does not change that much (compared with cloud top height). So I only use IR temperature to see the thickness of cloud (instead of cloud top height - LCL height)
What I did is
I integrated B for the positive area to get CAPE value.
%%----------------------------------- % #11 %------------------------------------ %% Buoyancy and CAPE like energy %------------------------------------- h=figure(10) subplot(1,2,1) plot(B,z/1000, '-k'); title('Buoyancy'); ylabel('height (km)'); line([0 0],[0 18], 'linestyle', '--'); xx=find(B > 0); nx=length(xx); % 133 for k=2:nx % I want to integrate from the 2nd point nB(k-1)=B(xx(k)); nz(k-1)=z(xx(k)); end CAPElike2=trapz(nz,nB); % I gave me one value hold on plot(B(xx),z(xx)/1000, 'or', 'markersize', 2.0); subplot(1,2,2) plot(CAPElike,z/1000, '-k'); title('CAPE like energy'); ylabel('height (km)'); line([0 0],[0 18], 'linestyle', '--'); text(-0.2, 10, ['CAPE =' num2str(fix(CAPElike2)),' J/kg'],'FontSize',18)matlab code :
purpose : I'm curious about the relationship between (1) surface temperature and cloud thickness and (2) surface temperature and LCL level, whether (1) thicker clouds and (2) low clouds (=low LCL) will increase surface temperature.
Final two figures
Figure 1: surface temperature v.s. cloud thickness (The reason that I can use RH instead of LCL, see Fig4)
The dotted lines are mean RH and temp Ts.
??? It's not a exact linear. what happened surface temperature higher than ~28?
Figure 2: surface temperature v.s. LCL level
??? no dependence....at least IR temp > -40c (or can we say linear relation between them?)
??? Lower then -40: ice?? envil??
For all figures below here: processes to reach the above two figures.
Figure 3
We can see from the above figures : we can use RH instead of a real LCL height. We'll see the figure (below) looks same as the 1st figure.
Figure 4 (below):
Figure 5 (below)
we can see from the above figure: the level of IR temperature (cloud top) changes significantly, while LCL height does not change that much (compared with cloud top height). So I only use IR temperature to see the thickness of cloud (instead of cloud top height - LCL height)